nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Religious Life
Objectification If this must become a main namespace article, I think it best to present this book in a more objective way. Compare it to what Yuri does: he introduces his book "content" with statements such as "In chapter one, Medvedev argues that...: quote". You know what I'm getting at? 17:00, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :Well, I think this is good too. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:08, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::I think Donia wants to make it read like a real book Pierlot McCrooke 17:26, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :I'd rather keep it this way, hope you don't mind, Dimitri? Dr. Magnus 18:31, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::Sure . I just italicized it, to make evident it's a literal quotation. 18:32, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :Okay, cool. I'm hoping this'll get a better review then The Tragic Life of A.M. Donia when it's done, but I've got quite some work to do, it's far from finished. Dr. Magnus 18:42, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm sorry about the not-so-good review. It's nothing personal here, you know. I just try to evaluate these new publications in a way that I deem useful to some other users :) 18:46, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :::Don't be; it just wasn't as good as Lovian Dialogues. Neither was it meant to give some sharp insights or raise some philosophical debates, it was just lectuur. Religious Life's gonna be much better, much more serious. Dr. Magnus 18:53, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::That's right :) 19:11, October 31, 2010 (UTC) Comments I'll continue to write shortly and I hope to be able to finish today or tomorrow. Any comments about the content itself? Dr. Magnus 09:18, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :I'm going to read it. If you want I can write a short review of the content, of course very nuanced in its context and all that. 10:22, November 1, 2010 (UTC) Of course. Wait 5 minutes, its almost done. Dr. Magnus 10:24, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :Done. Dr. Magnus 10:28, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Here we go: ::* Chapter 1 (1) neglects the impact of society and human perception on reality. Free will is not always stronger than what society imposes upon us (even I have difficulty in thinking gender-neutral). So the idea people can choose to belief this or that (or even not) is a severe abstraction. Also, religion as in institute tends to control which information is available by for example only allowing muslim-education. They kinda narrow down the choice for you, which is very convenient to them. ::* Chapter 1 (2) also tries to make it seem as if religion is equally true to science because both lack proof. Science is indeed unable to proof many modern theories (but the concept of evolution is already proven), but proof shouldn't be the criterium. What makes science more truthful is that is starts by 'doubting everything'. Critical thought is central as opposed to religious thought which relies on dogma and the acceptation of absolute truth. ::* Chapter two neglects the interaction of religion with society: knowledge might be freeing but when based on dogma it must become suppressing. Comfort, a better future and other warm feelings offered by religion are very easily exploited by certain elites that want to keep the masses under control. True comfort should be looked for in solidarity and emancipation. ::* Chapter three (1) argues that religion can be a basis for morality. But how can acting out of fear of an absolute dictature be morally good? If I 'am good' because I don't want to burn for all eternity I'm not good, but just afraid and selfish. I'm literally trying to save my own ass and the poor fellows are just lucky that they get something from it. ::* Chapter three (2) also makes it seem as if atheists are the selfish ones. I can assure you I'm a great lover of solidarity, equality, compassion, democracy, ... and you know where I get those ideas from? Science! The insights of Darwin and Marx are in fact a stronger basis for morality than religion because they start with the human being and not with some divine dictatorship. ::A final note: Darwin didn't say our ancestors are monkeys, he just said humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. Hope this is sufficient? 10:48, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :More then sufficient. Thanks for sharing your insights. I hope the work isn't dissapointing? Dr. Magnus 10:52, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::No, it's much better then most works in defense of religion I read. Especially the relativism and attempts at reconciliation lighten up the work. I'll write the bit about criticism now. 11:05, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks. It's a very nice thing to do, writing. I've left out parts about church charity and such, by the way, because I did not want to just keep copying myself. Dr. Magnus 11:07, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Finished. I think this must be the best 'CR-part' any book has. I'm actually kinda proud of it. Is it balanced enough? 11:35, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::It's good indeed. A good "reception" section is always a great attribute :) 08:14, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Publisher Anyone interested in publishing the book? Dr. Magnus 11:19, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :I always pick The House Publishers without asking. They never seem to mind. 11:36, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Why would anyone mind? As for me; only the best is good enough. Dr. Magnus 11:39, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Publishers don't accept just any book. But on a wiki you can always say it's an independent publication as in 'the author funded the entire publication himself'. 11:49, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::You can work under Balancing Point Publishers if you'd like. Still young, but nonetheless going to work to step up against The House. ::::I'd also like to remark that your basis for morality is based upon an ideal of morality that is nothing less than a misinterpretation of religion; what it really teaches is not what people nowadays preach. I feel that my three rules of morality (though they're hardly my own) work much better. Edward Hannis 23:30, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::If possible, The House Publishers would like to refrain from any religious, conspiracy or other such books. We just need to find our kind of books, and we think religious books don't fit in too well. But I suppose you weren't exactly thinking of House in the first place :) 08:20, November 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::I suppose I'd better go with Balancing Point Publishers then. So far the reactions are very mixed and reviews not quite positive, but at least having a good publisher is a good start. The fact that it publishes the books of atheists and Christians alike speaks much in favour of that balanced point the name suggests! Dr. Magnus 09:20, November 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::Nova Times gave it 5/5! Marcus Villanova 20:36, November 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Thanks! And has Nova Times already reviewed The Tragic Life of A.M. Donia? Dr. Magnus 21:21, November 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Your five stars makes the average 3,5 so I'm glad with it! Dr. Magnus 21:22, November 2, 2010 (UTC)